Hell twice over
The refusal of the neighbour in the flat directly above mine, identified throughout Bent Council as nfh, to live less intrusively was condoned by Brent Council's failure to deal with my complaints of this intrusion honestly, adequately and professionally
18th October 2008 « Corrupt Council « Nasty neighbour
Revised: 7-7-09
The neighbour from hell
Persistent loud music:
This neighbour persistently played music at a loud, nuisance level at any time of day or night (see Loud music nuisance). This nuisance stopped only when I made my first complaint about them to Brent Council in March 1996. They resumed this nuisance in 2002 (see A temporary lull Loud music nuisance).
Rubbish falling from their balcony:
Rubbish of various kinds fell onto my balcony from their balcony. Despite my repeated requests not to allow rubbish to fall onto my balcony, they ignored my concerns (see Litter and filth).
Intrusive sounds through my ceilings:
Intrusive sounds, such as the heavy footfalls of adults and children, and the dragging and/or dropping of objects on hard floors were transmitted through my ceilings. Some of this intrusive sound stopped after I complained to the Council about their loud music in 1996 (see link above). All of this nuisance returned in the mid-1990s (see A heavy-footed family).
Discharge of water from their balcony:
Repeatedly, they discharged water from their balcony rainwater run-off which collected in a pool on my balcony floor and soiled my balcony window. They ignored my repeated requests not to discharge water like this (see Misusing their balcony).
Flushing rubbish from their balcony:
Repeatedly, they pushed rubbish through their balcony rainwater run-off which fell onto my balcony. They ignored my repeated requests not to dispose of rubbish like this (see Other nuisance caused by nfh Misusing their balcony). Only after my complaint to the Ombudsman in 2002 did the Council deal with this nuisance.
Trickle of water from the flat abovenfh:
Nfh refused to co-operate in establishing the source of a water trickle from her balcony which soiled my kitchen window (see On a separate issue… Misusing their balcony).
Deliberate soiling of my kitchen window:
After being shown in 2000 the damage to my kitchen window because of this trickle of water, nfh deliberately soiled this window persistently (see Showing nfh I value clean windows Soiling my windows).
Interfering with my TV aerial:
Nfh interfered with my television aerial causing loss of TV reception in 1996. They caused the same nuisance again in 2003 (see Interfering with my telly). On both occasions, the Council repaired the damage and restored my TV reception.
Nuisance from the overflow pipe:
Nfh fitted an overflow pipe directly above my windows and refused to deal with the nuisance caused by the water flowing from this pipe (see Incompetent Brent).
Unreasonable use of laundry equipment:
Nfh used laundry equipment for many hours almost daily, often well into the night, causing considerable nuisance to me (see Washing machine noise).
Nfh refuses to attend mediation:
Nfh refused mediation by failing to attend a mediation meeting with Brent Mediation Service in 2003, and failing to give a telephone contact number (see Enter the volunteers The 'neighbour relations team').
The vindictive, bullying nature of this neighbour:
Since the arrival of nfh (see note 1 below) on this estate in the late 1980s, they have refused to behave less intrusively, and have shown nothing but contempt towards me. I believe my only 'slight' towards them was repeatedly to ask them to turn down their loud music and, eventually, my first complaint to the Council in 1996 about this loud music. My complaints about the various other aspects of their nuisance behaviour were not put directly to them until from the early 1990s onwards, so I assume their hostility towards me originally was generated by their being unable to play music as loudly as they would have liked.
The extent of their use of laundry equipment (see note 2 below) was such that, from the mid-1990s onwards, I believed them to be conducting a commercial laundry operation from their home, with a washing machine operating almost daily, often for several hours non-stop. I have recorded the greatest number of hours of their use of laundry equipment in a single 24-hour period at 13 hours. Their washing machine was noisy and could be heard clearly virtually as soon as it was turned on, with this nuisance compounded by the considerably noisier spin cycles. This machine was not replaced until mid-2006 when they all left that address and their tenant occupied the property. Their dryer also was noisy and could be heard virtually from the time it was started.
Note 1 Throughout Bent Council, I have used the term 'nfh' to identify any resident at the address in the flat directly above mine living there in the period 1987-2009.
Note 2 Throughout Bent Council, I have used the term laundry equipment to describe a washing machine and/or a clothes-drying machine.
This was no random, unintentional behaviour:
Nfh was aware of the issues of which I had complained directly to herself since the late 1980s. She also may have been aware of my complaints about this behaviour to the Council since 1996. She was aware since 2001 of my concerns of their use of a washing machine late at night. While their laundry equipment was operating, she was given access to my bedroom in 2003 to hear the level of noise present when they used it. Despite the evidence presented to her, this equipment continued to be used throughout the night.
The Council have said this neighbour has told the Council she has a disabled son and, consequently, used her washing machine more heavily than normal. When their laundry equipment was used at night, often this laundry equipment had not been used during the day even though their flat had been occupied for some or most of this time. Nfh has shown she is prepared to use her child's tragic disability as an excuse to cause nuisance and to harass me.
When they realised I valued clean windows, they started soiling my kitchen window shortly after she was given access to my kitchen in 2000 to see the damage caused to this window because of water falling from their balcony. It was this malevolence which motivated their attempt to soil my bedroom window in 2001, and which motivated their refusal to deal with the water flowing from their overflow pipe.
I wrote a short article in our resident's association newsletter in 1994 about the dangers inherent in attracting pigeons by feeding them close to resident's homes. Before this, they didn't feed the pigeons but, afterwards, they threw large amounts of food almost daily to these creatures outside my balcony.
I understand this woman, identified throughout Bent Council as nfh, worked as a 'housing officer' in a neighbouring London Borough in 2003. The anti-social behaviour of this woman and her family is mirrored in the behaviour of Brent Council's employees and whom I have identified by name and job title throughout Bent Council—and who similarly have treated me with contempt and arrogance.
The Council from hell
Discharge of water from their balcony:
The Council ignored my complaints of nuisance from the discharge of water from the balcony rainwater run-off of their flat (see Water continues to flow Misusing their balcony).
Rubbish falling from their balcony:
Despite seeing the evidence, the Council refused to deal with rubbish falling onto my balcony, and told me simply to ignore it (see Litter and filth).
Breach of confidentiality by 'housing office':
Instead of acting on my concerns, a local 'housing office' employee informed nfh of the contents of a private conversation (see I tell another Council employee… Misusing their balcony).
Failure of a 'housing officer' to meet me:
A Council employee showed a persistent inability to meet me to inspect evidence of the deliberate soiling of my bedroom window by nfh in 2001 (see A campaign of nuisance by nfh Soiling my windows).
Refusal to deal with a major nuisance:
Following my first complaint to the Ombudsman in 2002, the Council refused to deal with the unreasonable use of laundry equipment by nfh (see Washing machine noise).
The Council lie to the Ombudsman:
The Council lied to the Ombudsman in 2002 about the contents of a letter sent to me by a Council employee, and disguised the refusal of this Council employee to meet me (see The Council employee Catherine (Kate) Dack Unaccountable Brent and see also The Council's refusal to act Soiling my windows).
Incompetent paperwork procedures:
A Council employee failed to complete accurately and competently a referral form for mediation between nfh and myself in 2003 (see Befuddled, bewildered Brent The 'neighbour relations team').
Visit kept secret by the Council:
The Council withheld from the Ombudsman in 2005/6 that a Council employee visited to me on 14-1-2004 and that important information was given to this employee (see Uncaring Brent).
The Council mislead the Ombudsman—again!:
The Council were untruthful and disingenuous in responses to the Ombudsman in 2005/6 about evidence of nuisance in the Council's possession (see The Council employee Helen Evans Unaccountable Brent.
Failure to resolve the overflow pipe nuisance:
The Council failed to deal with nuisance caused by the overflow pipe fitted by nfh. The nuisance continued for several years until my second complaint to the Ombudsman in 2005/6 (see At last, the sleepyheads awake Incompetent Brent).
A very inappropriate leasehold agreement:
Normally, the Council's leasehold agreements work as intended, with restrictions on the use of noisy equipment after 11:00 p.m. observed. Council tenants are asked not to use noisy equipment, such as a washing machine, after 9:00 p.m., and leaseholders, too, normally observe this 9:00 p.m. limit. Consideration and respect is reciprocated by both tenants and neighbouring leaseholders. However, in the case of nfh, this leasehold agreement clearly is wholly inappropriate and has been demonstrated as inappropriate since 2001.
Brent Council say it is obliged to abide by the terms of this lease, and that it cannot enforce terms outside the terms of this lease. In creating this leasehold agreement with a neighbour who has shown such an intractable determination to cause nuisance as the individual and/or individuals described as nfh throughout Bent Council, Brent Council have sold my rights as the Council's tenant. I have enjoyed these rights since the commencement of my tenancy at this address in 1981 and was not consulted on the removal of these rights. To remove this nuisance and restore to me the rights enjoyed by all residents of this estate, the Council must redraw its leasehold agreement with the leaseholder identified throughout Bent Council as nfh.
Conducting a survey deceitful survey:
The Council employee Coote's 'survey' of 2006 appears to have been carried out simply because of the Council's need to manipulate the Ombudsman (see The Council employee Janet Coote / Deception No 2: Coote and Longdon). There are almost 60 addresses on this estate, including 24 in the building in which I live. Of these, there were just three residents 'surveyed', and I was not contacted for inclusion in this survey. This shows there was no intention of dealing with the nuisance of which I had complained to the Council. If the Council genuinely wished to detect a pattern of noise nuisance on this estate, they should have conducted a survey several years ago, and involved all residents of this estate. Furthermore, it would be impossible for the Council to establish nuisance from noise suffered at my address with Coote's 'survey' because the noise of which I had complained most persistently would not have been heard at other addresses on this estate. From this, it is evident the Council initiated this 'survey' purely as an exercise in deceiving the Ombudsman.
Brent Council have
- refused to collect evidence of the nuisance behaviour of nfh
- refused to act on the evidence of this nuisance when presented to it
- denied to the Ombudsman knowledge of this evidence
- failed to draw the Ombudsman's attention to the evidence in its possession
- ignored the nature of the nuisance presented by this neighbour
- ignored the negative effects upon me of this leasehold agreement
- presented information to the Ombudsman in a way which disguised the unsuitability of this leasehold agreement
- blatantly mislead the Ombudsman
- made a laughing stock of the service provided by the Commission for Local Administration in England
Related posts
Battling Brent Bloody Brent Revolting Brent Incompetent Brent The 'neighbour relations team' Uncaring Brent An open letter to Brent Council … while Nero fiddled Unaccountable Brent Coote and Longdon Rogue's Gallery Arrogant Brent Why did Dack lie? Evans is dishonest, Part 1 Capitulating Brent? Bent Brent
Loud music nuisance Interfering with my telly Litter and filth A heavy-footed family Misusing their balcony Washing machine noise Soiling my windows A neighbour from hell A catalogue of nuisance
BC copyright © 2008 WPL · Two hells · Bent Council
